Heritage Unit Photos (NW Mailing List)

[NW Mailing List]

>From the N&W Book of Operating Rules Jan 1, 1967, Page 10:

Engine - A unit propelled by any form of energy, or a combination of such units operated under a single control, used in train or yard service.

I've seen locomotive and engine interchanged in various railroad Rule Books but the key is that a single unit or multiple units operated from a single control constitute a locomotive or engine.

Another proper term that applies to single or multi-unit diesel locomotives or engines is "consist":
Locomotive or Engine Consist refers to the group of locomotives<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotive> powering the train.  Railfans often use the term "Lash-up" in place of consist.  In all my years of hanging around railroaders I've always heard consist used, never lash-up.

Ed Painter - Native Southwest Virginian/Appalachian American (properly pronounced Appa-LATCH-ian)


From: nw-mailing-list-bounces at nwhs.org [mailto:nw-mailing-list-bounces at nwhs.org] On Behalf Of NW Mailing List
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 1:40 PM
To: NW Mailing List
Subject: Re: Heritage Unit Photos (NW Mailing List)

Foamer-words, Abram?

I can tell you from very personal experience (and I know there are others on this list to back me up) that locomotives are indeed called "units."  I suspect it comes from the days in which a single locomotive could be made up of multiple units - for example, an ABBA set of FT's would correctly be a single locomotive, at least when first delivered.  Also, have you ever heard of the connections between locomotives being called ME or ML ("multiple engine" or multiple locomotive") plugs/hoses?  I have NEVER heard of them being called anything other than MU ("multiple unit") plugs and hoses.  If you think about a locomotive in the terms of the steam era, it referred to the machine which pulled (or pushed) a train and which was under the control of an engineer.  By the same logic, I (as an engineer) would control multiple "units" in the diesel-electric replacement for that steam locomotive.

On a related note, a steam locomotive also has an engine - the combination of cylinders, rods, and main drive wheels (whichever wheel set the main rods go to) is correctly called the engine.  A steam "locomotive" is made up of the engine, boiler, tender (in most cases) and whatever additional wheels are needed to carry the weight and distribute the power of the engine.  A diesel locomotive also has an engine - also knows as the prime mover - which is a very large (in most cases) internal combustion diesel engine, and which powers the main generator which provides power to the traction motors which move the locomotive.  Thus, as you can see, "locomotive" and "engine" do not mean the same thing.

I cannot say a lot about "grabs" other than to say railroaders are lazy, and why use two words when one will get the message across?  That said, we don't discuss them that often - we just use them.  I cannot recall hearing them called "grabs" but then I cannot recall hearing them called anything, except during training.

A "ground throw" and a "hand operated switch" are in fact two different things.  The ground throw is the mechanism (with handle and sometimes target) which is used to operate a hand operated switch.  The switch is the track, the throw is the part the conductor or switchman uses.

I can't say I've heard much talk about signal heads (and even less about arms) on the railroad.  We usually call them "aspects," and yes I am aware that the aspect more properly refers to the lens and bulb rather than the entire head.  Historic nomenclature notwithstanding, a modern color light signal has heads, not arms.  the term "arm" comes from the days of semaphores, and CPLs could be considered similar, since they were basically stylized illuminated versions of semaphores.  I understand that the N&W did use the term when referring to the signal parts in question, though I do not know if it was official or cultural inertia.

Foamer-words, indeed!  I'm all for being a curmudgeon, but get it right, will ya?

Ken Rickman
engineer-at-large

On 4/27/2012 12:12 PM, NW Mailing List wrote:

Why must we call locomotives "Units" ?



What's wrong with the age-old, tradition-tried word "Engines" ?



The same goes for such foamer drivel as "grabs" for grab irons, "ground throws" for hand operated switches,  "heads" for the arms of a signal, and such like weenie-talk.



Y'all need to talk right, Fellers !  Use the historic vocabulary, not foamer-words !



-- abram burnett

curmudegeon-at-large



--

Kenneth Rickman

Salisbury, NC

C:\WINDOWS C:\WINDOWS\GO C:\PC\CRAWL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/nw-mailing-list/attachments/20120427/b3570150/attachment.htm>